I just watched An Inconvenient Truth

[SkepticLance]

Dak said

 

do you have any studies/models/predictions etc that project environmental changes that will/might be a balanced mix of good and bad (or is that not what you meant)?

 

There are heaps of studies showing various aspects of what I am talking about. For example; studies showing increased plant growth with higher CO2, or increased drought resistance with the same.

 

However, that is not quite the point. I do not know if the future warming will be a balance of good and bad; or more good; or more bad. In actual fact, no-one knows. Although there are plenty of people engaged in auto-erotic exercises who claim to!

 

What I was trying to do was introduce a bit of balance. Most global warming activists try to tell everyone it is all doom and gloom. It is not. There will be seriously bad things, sure. There will also be very good things. How they balance out is not something I, or anyone else, can truthfully report on. Anyone who tries is revealing their own auto-erotic nature.

 

1veedo said :

 

The least you could do is keep your facts strait. The Earth has been warming at .2C (up to .22C depending on the study) per decade for around 30 years.

 

Actually, it all depends on which reference you refer to. I have seen a range of estimates. The figure I quote is derived by taking the average global temperatures at the end of the 1941 to 1976 cooling period, and the 2006 temperature, and dividing the increase by 3. That is; an increase of 0.48 C over 3 decades = 0.16 per decade. A lot of papers take the 'lazy' approach of rounding it up to 0.2 C. I have even seen a New Scientist article claiming an average of 0.13. If you want to insist on 0.2, then fine. The difference between the correct figure of 0.16 and the rounded up figure of 0.2 is trivial anyway.

 

1veedo also said :

 

I think it's funny that you say this because the scientific community unequivocally agrees that humans have been causing global warming. So if we only use peer-review, then your position is completely thrown out of the window, SkepticLance. If I were you, I'd embrace non-scientific sources.

 

Check my previous posts. I have accepted that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably a major cause of warming over the past 3 decades. If you want to argue with me, fine. But please argue with the position I take; not some position you only imagine I take.

[1veedo]

What I was trying to do was introduce a bit of balance. Most global warming activists try to tell everyone it is all doom and gloom. It is not. There will be seriously bad things, sure. There will also be very good things. How they balance out is not something I, or anyone else, can truthfully report on. Anyone who tries is revealing their own auto-erotic nature.

How many times do I have to tell you that this isn't the opinion of the scientific community? Scientists do agree that it's not going to be a good thing, but they're not telling us that it's going to be necessarily horrific or anything. You're arguing against science with a straw man, and this will not do.

Actually, it all depends on which reference you refer to. I have seen a range of estimates. The figure I quote is derived by taking the average global temperatures at the end of the 1941 to 1976 cooling period, and the 2006 temperature, and dividing the increase by 3. That is; an increase of 0.48 C over 3 decades = 0.16 per decade. A lot of papers take the 'lazy' approach of rounding it up to 0.2 C. I have even seen a New Scientist article claiming an average of 0.13. If you want to insist on 0.2, then fine. The difference between the correct figure of 0.16 and the rounded up figure of 0.2 is trivial anyway.

Official temperature readings from both ground temperature recording stations and satalite temperature readings show a rise of .19 and .22C per decade sense the latter part of the 1970s. So yes, the .19C is rounded up to .2, and the .22C is rounded down to .2, but I can assure you that .16 is off by a great deal. It might be true that if you take it from 1970, it is an average .16, but the point of the .2C figure is to illustrate what's been happening sense CO2 levels greatly increased during the 1970s. This is why, de facto, .2C is the figure that everyone uses. It's not a matter of rounding .16 up.

 

I gave you four sources for this. You can read NASA's GISS is you want to verify that .2C is the figure used by most people. However, you provided no sources for .16C. I think this alone shows the difference in credibility between the two figures.

Check my previous posts. I have accepted that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are probably a major cause of warming over the past 3 decades. If you want to argue with me, fine. But please argue with the position I take; not some position you only imagine I take.

If I understand your position correctly, you do not think that sense 1900 humans have been the primary driver of global warming? If this is the case, then you are unequivocally contradicted by the scientific community. I have provided references from peer-review in the past that shows only a 16% to 36% contribution from non-human sources between 1900 and 1950. You have refused to accept this data.

A denier refuses to accept data.

Be careful, SkepticLance.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

you do not think that sense 1900 humans have been the primary driver of global warming? If this is the case, then you are unequivocally contradicted by the scientific community

 

I have also read a wide range f the statements by members of the scientific community. While the IPCC says that the last 3 years is warmed by GGs, to 90% probability, they do not say that about earlier times. I do not believe there is any general agreement on causes of warming back to 1900.

 

If you look at the pattern of warming you see 1890 to 1910 is cooling - thus it cannot be GG driven warming. In fact, no warming at all.

 

1910 to 1940 is strong warming, but minor GG increase.

1941 to 1976 is cooling, and strong GG increase.

 

Only 1976 to present shows both strong warming and strong GG increase together.

 

We have argued this before. As I said, a denier denies facts. Do you deny these facts? You cannot argue, for example that from 1941 to 1976 that GGs are driving warming, since the facts show no warming was occurring.

 

Other factors were at play. Probably a number of them. GGs have not grown appreciably till about WWII (relative to the way they are growing today). However, solar activity, vulcanism, and other factors have had their impact. No doubts GGs have had an impact also. However, to say that GG effect has dominated since 1900 is to ignore the facts.

[1veedo]

I have also read a wide range f the statements by members of the scientific community. While the IPCC says that the last 3 years is warmed by GGs, to 90% probability, they do not say that about earlier times. I do not believe there is any general agreement on causes of warming back to 1900.

Are you joking? It's called a scientific consensus. We have a scientific consensus that tells us humans have been the primary driver of global warming sense at least 1900, if not early, and you say "I do not believe there is a general agreement."

 

Isn't a general agreement, almost by definition, what a consensus is?

If you look at the pattern of warming you see 1890 to 1910 is cooling - thus it cannot be GG driven warming. In fact, no warming at all.

 

1910 to 1940 is strong warming, but minor GG increase.

1941 to 1976 is cooling, and strong GG increase.

 

Only 1976 to present shows both strong warming and strong GG increase together.

 

We have argued this before. As I said, a denier denies facts. Do you deny these facts? You cannot argue, for example that from 1941 to 1976 that GGs are driving warming, since the facts show no warming was occurring.

 

Other factors were at play. Probably a number of them. GGs have not grown appreciably till about WWII (relative to the way they are growing today). However, solar activity, vulcanism, and other factors have had their impact. No doubts GGs have had an impact also. However, to say that GG effect has dominated since 1900 is to ignore the facts.

Wow I've explained all of this to you before, a couple times actually, and maybe you forgot or didn't understand, but that's ok because we're here to learn.

 

CO2 isn't the only force in the climate -- this is an extremely simplified version of climate science. There are other factors, one which is the aerosol effect (from particulates). Particulates have the effect that they block out sunlight. The reason for the decrease in temperate after 1940 is largely because of increased particulate pollution.

 

Another source of particulate pollution comes from volcanoes. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 for instance, we saw a decrease in temperature. So there's a lot going on besides CO2 -- no scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the only factor in our climate. It is, however, one of the largest factors. This is apparent because the entire period from 1900 to today shows a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature.

 

Of relevance is the fact that scientists include the sun in their models. Although today the sun contributes a very small portion of warming, historically it has been much greater. Between 1900 and 1950, for instance, the sun had an effect of 16% to 36%. This is still not nearly as high as the human impact during this period, but it is still large enough to be looked at.

 

In order to understand climate science, you can't try to simplify things because the climate is inherently very complex. I think this is your main problem. In climate science, factors that play into heating up or cooling down the Earth are known as radiative forcings. Radiative forcing "is a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it." (feb 2007)

 

The main factors are: greenhouse gases, solar, ozone, volcanic and aerosol (of course there are a few more but combined they have a very small effect). What scientists do is take all the different radiative forcing components, add them together, and from this they get the total influence that all the factors have on the planet. Using this number, they can predict what the climate is going to do.

 

This is of course only the basics, but all you really need to understand is the basics. When you add all of the different factors together, you find that climate models agree with the way the temperature behaved not just between 1910 and 1940, or 1941 and 1976, but they agree with the entire period between 1900 and today.

 

And when you break down all of the components, you find that the largest factors between 1900 and today have been human in nature. Even the cooling after 1940 was mostly caused by humans, so using that example only further illustrates how large of an effect humans have had on the climate.

[SkepticLance]

To 1veedo

 

You are not telling me anything I don't already know. However, you still insist that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (AGGs) are the primary driver of climate change since 1900. That is clearly and obviously not so.

 

As you pointed out, there are numerous influences. They, no doubt, include solar, vulcanism, AGGs, aerosols and others. What I am pointing out is that, on several occasions, the non AGG influences were clearly more powerful than the AGG influence, since the world went into cooling. Thus, at any time the world is cooling or not warming, AGGs are not the primary driver.

 

AGGs since 1880 cannot cause cooling, since they have been increasing. If the world cools, then it is clearly obvious that other factors overwhelm the AGG influence.

 

In fact, the world cooled from 1880 to 1910, and again from 1940 to 1975. So, over a period of 95 years, 65 years were either cooling, or at least not warming. Over that time, only 30 years were warming. Since AGGs cannot cause cooling, other factors overwhelmed them for 68% of that time. Even the 30 years of warming were not clearly AGG dominance, since solar activity was increasing over that period, so that warming had 2 causes, at least.

 

Thus, I can say with confidence that AGGs were NOT the dominant climate influence from 1900 to 1975.

 

I believe that the picture I have just described comes closer to the 'consensus' than yours. Many factors, including AGGs, all playing a part. But no factor clearly dominant.

[1veedo]

Well at least you've accepted the .2C figure.

As you pointed out, there are numerous influences. They, no doubt, include solar, vulcanism, AGGs, aerosols and others. What I am pointing out is that, on several occasions, the non AGG influences were clearly more powerful than the AGG influence, since the world went into cooling. Thus, at any time the world is cooling or not warming, AGGs are not the primary driver.

Ok, this is true. But I'm referring to the warming, not the cooling. Throughout the 20th century, warming of the planet has been primarily caused by greenhouse gases. This is significant because it illustrates that the reason the planet has gotten warmer is mostly because of human activity.

Even the 30 years of warming were not clearly AGG dominance, since solar activity was increasing over that period, so that warming had 2 causes, at least.

The warming was clearly dominated by greenhouse gases. The largest portion of warming at any time after 1900 that could have not been caused by human activity is 36%. (Stott et al, 2003)

 

The point is that humans are responsible for the majority of the warming sense 1900. It is true that before 1950, the sun has a much larger effect then it did today, but even in the highest range of 36%, I don't think this constitutes a majority. The effects of ghgs on the climate are clearest after 1976 (ahem, 1950), but this does not mean that before 1950 they were relatively unimportant compared to other factors (such as the sun).

 

If you think it's obvious that human ghg emissions have not been the primary driver of global warming, then why don't you point it out to the scientists? This has been a consensus for a very long time and I doubt you've found anything that they havn't already thought about.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

Well at least you've accepted the .2C figure

 

Its just not worth arguing about. The difference is too trivial.

 

1veedo also said :

 

If you think it's obvious that human ghg emissions have not been the primary driver of global warming, then why don't you point it out to the scientists?

 

By your altered definition, we probably do not have an argument. If you accept that all the times the world is cooling, or at least not warming, that AGGs are not dominant, then I am prepared to settle our argument.

 

The fact that over 95 years before 1976, factors other than AGGs are dominant for 68% of the time, rather reduces the importance of AGGs for that time, don't you think?

[1veedo]

The point all along has been that humans are the primary reason for global warming. And not just after 1976, but for the entire 20th century.

[rthmjohn]

Global warming is obviously very real, but as long as these mega-corporations like Exxon Mobil and BP exist in the world, they will fight to prove global warming is a hoax. Enacting stricter regulations on emissions costs companies lots of money, and when you threaten to take awaysthese rich bastards' money you are guaranteed to see opposition from them.

 

By the way... I know global warming is supposed to cause temperature rise, but I live in Indiana and it's supposed to be spring. It was in the 80's last week but over the weekend, temperatures dropped below the 20's (in degrees Fahrenheit of course). What's the deal with that?

[Pangloss]

That's the only reason they'll fight regulation, because they're "rich bastards"? Interesting. In that case, to crib from your signature, wouldn't having more regulation be like having a no-peeing section in the pool?

 

The goal is not demonization of "mega-corporations" or "rich bastards". The goal is the salvation of the planet. Chuck the agenda and focus on what's real. You'll be amazed how much more work you can accomplish working with people rather than against them.

 

BTW, the reason you're seeing cold weather in Indiana is because it's early April and you live in Indiana. This notion that global warming has produced noticable weather differences is about as useful as the demonization of the very people we need to convince to change their ways.

[Dak]

you gotta admit, the petrochemical industry is no more likely to admit that CO2 is in any way causing global warming than the tobacco industry was prepared to admit that ciggarrettes caused lung cancer, for the simple reason that it'd greatly hurt their profits.

[SkepticLance]

Dak.

 

Forget the petrochemical industry. Attacking them is equivalent to Don Quixote attacking windmills. Pointless in the extreme.

 

All the readily extractable oil and natural gas will be gone in 30 to 60 years. Whatever you or I, or anyone else says or does, that oil and gas will be extracted and burned. It will not make a big difference - about an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 20 ppm.

 

If you are genuinely concerned about greenhouse gases, your proper target is coal. The world has immense reserves. There is enough, if burned, to add 1000 ppm to atmospheric CO2. This makes oil and gas seem trivial indeed.

 

China is currently commissioning a new coal burning power station each week. The USA has commissioned its first coal to diesel conversion plant. If coal is used without restraint, the CO2 levels will rise dramatically. Oil and natural gas, by comparison, do not matter.

[Dak]

I wasn't particularly attacking them, more pointing out that they're the kinda group that, in situations like this, are likely to try to throw a spanner in the works of any movements that are trying to limit the consumption of their product.

 

having said that, exxonmobil seem to have recently stopped

[Pangloss]

This is not aimed any anybody in particular; more a response to the tone of the last few posts. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here, but rather to talk about what I think the real problem is.

 

Companies change their behavior when people force them to by taking their business elsewhere. Regulation doesn't change the motivation, so ultimately it doesn't affect the behavior.

 

The problem is public perception and the black-and-white way issues are presented by the media. That's not to say that more regulation isn't part of the solution. I'm just saying that ideological grandstanding with statements like "we'll never solve this problem until we kill all the greedy fat cats and their big corporations and all go back to living on communal farms" are completely worthless. They have no value whatsoever, and in fact nonsense like that is part of the problem.

 

I used to work for a company that made filters for smokestacks out of high-tech materials (mist eliminators, tower packing, etc). Over the years we kept trying to sell them to Florida Power and Light. We never got anywhere, and to this day FP&L uses virtually no pollution control (yeah ok they have smokestacks, wee). And yet there's a common perception here in Florida that FP&L is a green company and does not pollute. People simply do not understand that meeting an EPA standard does not stop pollution. It simply puts up a number that companies have to fall below.

 

Well, FP&L falls below that number. So for them to spend money on pollution control would actually be counter-productive! It would raise questions in the media about why they're spending more money on pollution control. Weren't they clean before?

 

So from FP&L's point of view it actually makes more sense to spend money on advertising rather than pollution control! And note that this is not because they have to convince people that they're clean. It's because we require them to convince us that they're green! We basically sit here and demand that they mislead us in this way!

 

The public depends almost entirely on what the media tells them, and what the media tells them is completely useless. Something is either "polluting" or it is assumed to be "clean". That's it. There is no in-between. So we go through these ridiculous cycles where something is declared "polluting", and we "clean it up", and then everything is hunky-dory. Children can play in the sunlight and grass grows and everyone can smile. Yay!

 

Oh, what's that you say, something else is polluting? But wait... it was polluting all along? So the sun wasn't really shining? The grass wasn't really green? The kids weren't really laughing and smiling? So.... why did it look all green and sunny?

 

Is it any wonder people get tired of this stuff? Instead of taking the time to explain to people what's actually happening, we toss them back and forth from emergency to emergency, promising every single time that if they just solve this one problem then they'll never be in danger ever again.

 

It's absolute insanity. And we are all responsible for every bit of it. Tossing it all on the shoulders of "greedy corporations" is just useless, unproductive, time-wasting nonsense.

[bombus]

What's the key word here...

 

Until you can definitively prove causation, then the neigh sayers have a case.

 

Yes but who wants to take a chance like that!? I'd rather take a chance of being wrong than dead.

[ecoli]

Yes but who wants to take a chance like that!? I'd rather take a chance of being wrong than dead.

 

The people who'd be affected economically by many of the proposed solutions for global warming... that's who. For their sake, we'd better be sure.

[1veedo]

We are sure.

[ecoli]

We are sure.

 

You are sure that humans are the one and only cause of global warming, and that there are absolutely, without question, no other possible natural causes?

 

Cause I'm not, and neither are other climatologists, who seem to think that human influences are pushing natural warming cycles, or that the two are working together in a different way. I don't understand why anyone would reject this possibility out of hand.

[1veedo]

You are sure that humans are the one and only cause of global warming' date=' and that there are absolutely, without question, no other possible natural causes?

 

Cause I'm not, and neither are other climatologists, who seem to think that human influences are pushing natural warming cycles, or that the two are working together in a different way. I don't understand why anyone would reject this possibility out of hand.[/quote']No, humans are not the only cause. No scientist has ever claimed this so you are using a straw man. Humans are, however, the primary factor for the observed increase in temperatures and are almost entirely to blame.

[ecoli]

No, humans are not the only cause. No scientist has ever claimed this so you are using a straw man. Humans are, however, the primary factor for the observed increase in temperatures and are almost entirely to blame.

sorry for the strawman, it was an accident, as I haven't really read this thread in it's entirety.

 

As for how much or how little humans are to blame, I believe that question is still open for debate (and debate it, we should).

[SkepticLance]

1veedo is not, strictly speaking telling, the whole truth, and knows it, when saying :

 

Humans are, however, the primary factor for the observed increase in temperatures and are almost entirely to blame.

 

I know this because 1veedo has admitted on another thread that solar forcings are up to 36% responsible for the global warming that happened up to 1940.

 

This is a clear admission that solar activity is an appreciable component of global warming. Thus, the words "almost entirely to blame" are not appropriate. 1veedo is not actually lying, but is stretching the truth towards his/her biased viewpoint.

 

I have pointed out before that the pattern of warming and cooling from 1880 to 1976 correlates more closely to sunspot activity than to greenhouse gases. After 1976, it correlates more closely to greenhouse gas increase. This clearly shows that human activity is not the only significant driver of global warming, at least before 1976.

[1veedo]

I know this because 1veedo has admitted on another thread that solar forcings are up to 36% responsible for the global warming that happened up to 1940.

 

This is a clear admission that solar activity is an appreciable component of global warming. Thus, the words "almost entirely to blame" are not appropriate. 1veedo is not actually lying, but is stretching the truth towards his/her biased viewpoint.

Out of the total temperature increase of almost (or more then) 1 degree sense 1900, the sun could have, at most, contributed 36% to the less then .3~.4 degree rise between 1900 and 1950. After 1950, the sun's influence has diminished significantly and contributes an entire order of magnitude less then human activities. We're talking after 1950, more then 90% of the increase in temperature was caused by humans, and this is also the period when most of the warming has taken place (specifically after 1976 w/ .2C per decade increase in temperature).

 

But this isn't anything profesional, it just servs to illistrate exactly what we're talking about. But don't ask me; ask the scientists themselves:

 

From wikipeda,

 

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."

 

"In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus."

 

The exact portion caused by solar and human influences isn't known but scientists are sure beyond any shadow of doubt that whatever the exact portions are, human influences are significantly higher then natural factors.

 

It's called a scientific consensus -- I still don't see why you have such a hard time understanding this.

I have pointed out before that the pattern of warming and cooling from 1880 to 1976 correlates more closely to sunspot activity than to greenhouse gases. After 1976, it correlates more closely to greenhouse gas increase. This clearly shows that human activity is not the only significant driver of global warming, at least before 1976.

Wow I've explained this to you before, a couple times actually, and maybe you forgot or didn't understand, but that's ok because we're here to learn.

 

It turns out that CO2 very strongly correlates with temperature for the entire period between 1900 and today, while solar irradiance only correlates to roughly 1976.

 

You might be interested in reading the Stott et all sutdy, "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?" from Journal of Climate, vol. 16, p. 4079-4093.

 

According to this paper, even the period between 1900 and 1950 where the temperature most appears to correlate with solar activity visually, only 16% to 36% of the total warming was actually caused by the increase in solar activity. The rest was caused by greenhouse gases emitted by humans.

 

You seem to be insinuating that the warming/cooling before 1976 correlates more closely to solar activity but the data clearly shows that greenhouse gases have been the primary driver of global warming sense at least 1900, regardless of what it looks like visually.

 

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig2-CO2-Temp.jpg

 

And even visually, as above, you can clearly see how closely CO2 and temperature correlate. It is a much better correlation then solar activity. Not that it really matters though, because like I said scientists are certain that the majority of warming has been caused by human activity.

[SkepticLance]

1veedo

 

On the graph you offered as a reference, if you remove the data after 1976, the correlation between CO2 and temperature becomes weak.

 

If you want to see a good correlation for the 1900 to 1976 period, look at the graph in :

 

http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml

 

This graph shows solar activity versus temperature to 1976. The correlation is much closer.

[bascule]

1veedo is not, strictly speaking telling, the whole truth, and knows it, when saying :

 

Humans are, however, the primary factor for the observed increase in temperatures and are almost entirely to blame.

 

I know this because 1veedo has admitted on another thread that solar forcings are up to 36% responsible for the global warming that happened up to 1940.

 

How about going with the IPCC's summary from AR4:

 

It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century

 

In context, "very likely" indicates that they are more than 90% certain.

[SkepticLance]

To Bascule,

The phrase you quoted "most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century" is somewhat misleading. This is because the mid 20th century means 1950, and there was a net cooling from 1940 to 1976.

 

The temperature increases from the mid 20th were, in fact, all from 1976 onwards. A more correct and less misleading statement would be "the temperature increases of the last quarter of the 20th".

 

It is little tricks of language like the phrase above that are deliberately used by those with a political agenda to mislead.